A High Court judge will rule later on liability for what the State has agreed will be "substantial" costs, estimated at more than €1m, of a former prisoner's case over slopping out.

The State has yet to indicate if it will appeal Mr Justice Michael White's decision that slopping out breached former prisoner Gary Simpson's right to privacy and to dignity. 1,200 cases over slopping out are in the pipeline.

In his judgment last month, Mr Justice White rejected a key claim by Mr Simpson that slopping out also breached his right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The judge also refused to award damages for the breach of privacy rights after finding some of Mr Simpson’s evidence concerning his treatment was either untruthful or grossly exaggerated.

When the case returned before the judge today, he made a formal declaration, consequential on his judgment, that slopping out breached Mr Simpson's constitutional right to privacy and dignity.

Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr Simpson, sought a declaration in those terms but Remy Farrell SC, for the State, argued a declaration of a breach of the right would adequately reflect the court's findings in the case.

The judge said he would make the declaration as sought by Mr O'Higgins.

He also directed the sides to provide submissions on costs issues by October 27th. After that, he will fix a hearing date to decide liability for what both sides agreed will be "substantial" costs of the case, which ran for more than 30 days.

Because Mr Justice White had stressed in his judgment his decision was made in the particular circumstances of Mr Simpson’s imprisonment over eight months in 2013 - being under protection, doubled up in a single cell and 23 hour lock-up – the judgment’s implications for other cases remains unclear.

Official figures for last July showed 415 prisoners were on a restricted regime, most of whom had sought protection at their own request. 305 of that number were locked up for at least 21 hours daily.

Legal sources believe a considerable number of the cases have a reasonable prospect of securing damages because of their particular circumstances.

Cases of prisoners without previous convictions who were subject to slopping out after being jailed for a “once-off” offence may get a sympathetic hearing, sources suggested. A case where a prisoner allegedly had a bucket of faeces dumped on his head but was unable to get access to a shower for 24 hours is among those being pursued.

Following the Simpson judgment, a number of law firms pursuing hundreds of slopping out cases urged the State to actively consider an individual case assessment scheme which could lead to redress for some prisoners.

A High Court judge will rule later on liability for what the State has agreed will be "substantial" costs, estimated at more than €1m, of a former prisoner's case over slopping out.

The State has yet to indicate if it will appeal Mr Justice Michael White's decision that slopping out breached former prisoner Gary Simpson's right to privacy and to dignity. 1,200 cases over slopping out are in the pipeline.

In his judgment last month, Mr Justice White rejected a key claim by Mr Simpson that slopping out also breached his right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The judge also refused to award damages for the breach of privacy rights after finding some of Mr Simpson’s evidence concerning his treatment was either untruthful or grossly exaggerated.

When the case returned before the judge today, he made a formal declaration, consequential on his judgment, that slopping out breached Mr Simpson's constitutional right to privacy and dignity.

Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr Simpson, sought a declaration in those terms but Remy Farrell SC, for the State, argued a declaration of a breach of the right would adequately reflect the court's findings in the case.

The judge said he would make the declaration as sought by Mr O'Higgins.

He also directed the sides to provide submissions on costs issues by October 27th. After that, he will fix a hearing date to decide liability for what both sides agreed will be "substantial" costs of the case, which ran for more than 30 days.

Because Mr Justice White had stressed in his judgment his decision was made in the particular circumstances of Mr Simpson’s imprisonment over eight months in 2013 - being under protection, doubled up in a single cell and 23 hour lock-up – the judgment’s implications for other cases remains unclear.

Official figures for last July showed 415 prisoners were on a restricted regime, most of whom had sought protection at their own request. 305 of that number were locked up for at least 21 hours daily.

Legal sources believe a considerable number of the cases have a reasonable prospect of securing damages because of their particular circumstances.

Cases of prisoners without previous convictions who were subject to slopping out after being jailed for a “once-off” offence may get a sympathetic hearing, sources suggested. A case where a prisoner allegedly had a bucket of faeces dumped on his head but was unable to get access to a shower for 24 hours is among those being pursued.

Following the Simpson judgment, a number of law firms pursuing hundreds of slopping out cases urged the State to actively consider an individual case assessment scheme which could lead to redress for some prisoners.

When you take away someone's liberty, I think it's fair to say that the responsibility for looking after that person is now yours. The state failed, and must now pay.

Also, it couldn't "only happen here", there was a similar ruling in Scotland a few years ago.

Liberty, are you for real? What liberty does the ordinary law abiding citizen have? They roll out of bed at 6:30 am to go to a shitty job and sit for up to 8 hours in front of a screen.At the weekend they're too tired to go out an enjoy themselves because they're exhausted. To aff insult to injury their tax goes to the upkeep of lawbreakers and low life scum.

Liberty, are you for real? What liberty does the ordinary law abiding citizen have? They roll out of bed at 6:30 am to go to a shitty job and sit for up to 8 hours in front of a screen.At the weekend they're too tired to go out an enjoy themselves because they're exhausted. To aff insult to injury their tax goes to the upkeep of lawbreakers and low life scum.

Not all ordinary law abiding citizens have shitty jobs or the inability to enjoy their weekends.

All forum comments are the sole responsibility and property of forum users. PeoplesRepublicOfCork.com and its sponsors disclaim all liability for content posted by users of the forum. PeoplesRepublicOfCork.com and its sponsors do not necessarily share the views expressed in this forum. Use the report post system to have comments considered for edit or deletion. All users are IP logged. Website hosted by Hostrocket USA.